Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Material Conflict: MOOCs and Institutional Logics in Business Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Materiality in Institutions

Part of the book series: Technology, Work and Globalization ((TWG))

Abstract

Although the notion of incompatibility is implicit in the research on conflicting institutional logics, few studies explicitly address it. The chapter draws on the concept of materiality and theories of digital objects to explain how materiality affects the organizational templates and reasons for the conflict. The chosen context of Massive Open Online Course (MOOCS) contradicts the conventional organizing templates in business schools (BS) but it emerges a powerful force regardless. The focus on digital materiality helps us to elaborate the role of materiality in institutional logics. By juxtaposing and reconciling the substance of the physical mater and the substantive mattering of matter, the chapter enhances the definition and the theoretical boundaries of the concept.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In Chap. 5, Lise Arena and Ali Douai offer a complementary perspective on competing logics in Business Education. They explore the emergence of co-existing but competing logics through the history of Oxford University campus and the building of Saïd Business School. Through their investigation of space, they show how materiality fosters the hybridization of seemingly orthogonal institutional logics. That said, Chap. 5 explores institutional changes on a much longer time horizon, for example, several decades.

  2. 2.

    Chapter 1—introduction—provides additional detail about the debate on the porosity of the different kinds of materiality, in particular objects and digitality. Besides, digitality being dependent on physical artifacts implies that information is not only shared in digital spaces and platforms but also accessible through multiple, mobile devices. Such porosity thereby sophisticates the transferability of materiality. In the postface of the book, Candace Jones provides insightful discussion on the transferability of materiality.

  3. 3.

    Other proposals for materiality re-conceptualization can be found in this book. In Chap. 12, François-Xavier de Vaujany identifies three ontological avenues of legitimacy, including the ontology of sculpture and the ontology of bubbles. In the postface, Candace Jones proposes to view materiality as a carrier or through its performative role.

References

  • Alford, R. R., & Friedland, R. (1985). Powers of theory: Capitalism, the state, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. Q. (2015). Individualisation of higher education: How technological evolution can revolutionise opportunities for teaching and learning. International Social Science Journal, 64(212–214), 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansari, S., Wijen, F., & Gray, B. (2013). Constructing a climate change logic: An institutional perspective on the “tragedy of the commons”. Organization Science, 24, 1014–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antunes, D., & Thomas, H. (2007). The competitive (dis)advantages of European Business Schools. Long Range Planning, 40(3), 382–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batista, M. G., Clegg, S., Cunha, M. P., Giustiniano, L., & Rego, A. (2015). Improvising prescription: Evidence from the emergency room. British Journal of Management, 27(2), 406–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1419–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boland, R. J., Jr., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2007). Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organizational Science, 18(4), 631–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX’s first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8(March), 13–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chia, R., & Holt, R. (2014). The nature of knowledge in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(4), 471–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crainer, S., & Dearlove, D. (1999). Gravy training: Inside the business of business schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of interactive Media in education, 3. Available online: https://jime.open.ac.uk/articles/10.5334/2012-18/

  • D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellarocas, C., & Van Alstyne, M. (2013). Money models for MOOCs. Communications of the ACM, 56(8), 25–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekbia, H. R. (2009). Digital artifacts as quasi-objects: Qualification, mediation, and materiality. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12), 2554–2566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, G. H., & Zietsma, C. (2017). Constructing a shared governance logic: The role of emotions in enabling dually embedded agency. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2321–2351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2009). On the identity of technological objects and user innovations in function. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 442–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2013). Technological objects, social positions and the transformational model of social activity. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 37(3), 803–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fincham, R., & Forbes, T. (2015). Three’s a crowd: The role of inter-logic relationships in highly complex institutional fields. British Journal of Management, 26(4), 657–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkle, T. A., & Masters, E. (2014). Do MOOCs pose a threat to higher education? Research in Higher Education Journal, 26(1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firmin, R., Schiorring, E., Whitmer, J., Willett, T., Collins, E. D., & Sujitparapitaya, S. (2014). Case study: Using MOOCs for conventional college coursework. Distance Education, 35(2), 178–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, R. (2013). God, love and other good reasons for practice: Thinking through institutional logics. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39A, 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, R., & Alford, R. B. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–266). Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, H., Kop, R., & Durand, G. (2014). Challenges to research in MOOCs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, M. A. (2000). When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 11(3), 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodrick, E., & Salancik, G. R. (1996). Organizational discretion in responding to institutional practices: Hospitals and caesarean births. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. (1959). Higher education for business. The Journal of Business Education, 35(3), 115–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 317–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, D. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay, M. (2008). Business schools: A new sense of purpose. Journal of Management Development, 27(4), 371–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinings, B., Gegenhuberb, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28, 52–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). Why do institutions offer MOOCs? Online Learning, 18(3), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hugstad, P. S. (1983). The business school in the 1980s: Liberalism versus vocationalism. New York: Preager.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., & Massa, F. G. (2013). From novel practice to consecrated exemplar: Unity Temple as a case of institutional evangelizing. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1099–1136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., Maoret, M., Massa, F. G., & Svejenova, S. (2012). Rebels with a cause: Formation, contestation, and expansion of the de novo category “modern architecture,” 1870–1975. Organization Science, 23, 1523–1545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., Boxenbaum, E., & Callen, A. (2013). The immaterial of the material in institutional logics. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39A, 51–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallinikos, J. (2009). On the computational rendition of reality: Artifacts and human agency. Organization, 16(92), 183–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallinikos, J., & Mariátegui, J.-C. (2011). Video as digital object: Production and distribution of video content in the internet media ecosystem. The Information Society: An International Journal, 27(5), 281–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2013). The ambivalent ontology of digital artifacts. Information Systems Quarterly, 37(2), 357–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 243–275). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T. B., Leca, B., & Zilber, T. B. (2013). Institutional work: Current research, new directions and overlooked issues. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1023–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? How are they different? Do we need them. In P. Leonardi, B. Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (Eds.), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 25–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi, P. M. (2013). When does technology use enable network change in organizations? A comparative study of feature use and shared affordances. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 749–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, M., Kang, J., Cao, M., Lim, M., Ko, Y., Myers, R., & Schmitz Weiss, A. (2014). Understanding MOOCs as an emerging online learning tool: Perspectives from the students. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(3), 147–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M. (2002). Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionalization of the field of finance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 255–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 289–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, C. M., & Sauder, M. (2013). Logics in action managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 165–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Micelotta, E., Lounsbury, M., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Pathways of institutional change: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1885–1910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan-Thomas, A. (2016). Rethinking technology in the SME context: Affordances, practices and ICTs. International Small Business Journal, 34(8), 1122–1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolini, D., Delmestri, G., Goodrick, E., Reay, T., Lindberg, K., & Adolfsson, P. (2016). Look what’s back! Institutional complexity, reversibility and the knotting of logics. British Journal of Management, 27, 228–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007). The emergence of governance in an open source community. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1079–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ong, S., & Grigoryan, A. (2015). MOOCs and universities: Competitors or partners? International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(5), 373–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013a). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013b). Embedded in hybrid contexts: How individuals in organizations respond to competing institutional logics. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39, 3–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn Trank, C., & Washington, M. (2009). Maintaining the legitimacy of legitimating organizations: The institutional work of the AASCB and its constituents in business education. In T. Lawrence & R. Suddaby (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 236–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003). Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 795–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reay, T., & Hinings, C. (2005). The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in Alberta. Organization Studies, 26, 351–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30, 629–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, F., Pache, A. C., & Birkenholz, C. (2015). Making hybrids work: Aligning business models and organizational design for social enterprises. California Management Review, 57(3), 36–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schildt, H., & Perkmann, M. (2017). Organizational settlements: Theorizing how organizations respond to institutional complexity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26(2), 139–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2008). The future challenges of business: Rethinking management education. California Management Review, 50(3), 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smets, M., Morris, T., & Greenwood, R. (2012). From practice to field: A multi-level model of institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 877–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G., & Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 932–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, H., & Peters, K. (2012). A sustainable model for business schools. Journal of Management Development, 33(5), 470–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 81–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 801–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thorpe, R., & Rawlinson, R. (2014). Engaging with engagement: How UK business schools could meet the innovation challenge. Journal of Management Development, 33(5), 470–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townley, B. (2002). The role of competing rationalities in institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 163–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook, 36, 143–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Baalen, P. J., & Moratis, L. T. (2001). Management education in the network economy. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Veletsianos, G., & Shepherdson, P. (2015). Who studies MOOCs? Interdisciplinarity in MOOC research and its changes over time. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volkoff, O., & Strong, D. M. (2013). Critical realism and affordances: Theorizing IT-associated organizational change processes. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 819–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, S., Davis, H., Dickens, K., León, M., & Sánchez-Vera, M. M. (2014). MOOCs: What motivates the producers and participants? Communications in Computer Science, 510, 99–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, Y., Boland, R., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23(5), 1398–1408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education (JISC White Paper).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zietsma, C., Groenewegen, P., Logue, D., & Hinings, C. R. (2017). Field or fields? Building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields. The Academy of Management Annals, 11, 391–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zilber, T. B. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 234–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland

    Anna Morgan-Thomas & Agostinho Abrunhosa

  2. Business School of the University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

    J. Ignacio Canales

Authors
  1. Anna Morgan-Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Agostinho Abrunhosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Ignacio Canales
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Morgan-Thomas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Université Paris-Dauphine PSL, Paris, France

    François-Xavier de Vaujany  & Anouck Adrot  & 

  2. Department of Organization Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Eva Boxenbaum

  3. Centre de gestion scientifique (CGS) MINES ParisTech - PSL University i3 UMR CNRS, Paris, France

    Eva Boxenbaum

  4. ESSEC Business School, Cergy-Pontoise, France

    Bernard Leca

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Morgan-Thomas, A., Abrunhosa, A., Ignacio Canales, J. (2019). Material Conflict: MOOCs and Institutional Logics in Business Education. In: de Vaujany, FX., Adrot, A., Boxenbaum, E., Leca, B. (eds) Materiality in Institutions. Technology, Work and Globalization. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97472-9_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation